CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Immigration Practice
Judicial review of Immigration Appeal Division’s (IAD) decision setting aside Immigration Division’s (ID) finding applicant not inadmissible as refugee claimant under Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), S.C. 2001, c. 27, s. 37(1)(a)—IAD relying on phrase “at the time the appeal is disposed of” in IRPA, s. 67(1) to consider jurisdiction as de novo hearing, substitute its decision for that of ID—Parliament defining IAD’s jurisdiction on appeal very clearly, giving IAD three options after considering appeal (IRPA, s. 66)—IRPA, s. 67 not distinguishing between appeal made by Minister under s. 63(5), other appeals under ss. 63(1) to (4)—Even though IAD cannot consider humanitarian, compassionate grounds in appeal brought by Minister, IAD’s de novo jurisdiction not limited by IAD’s restricted ability to consider fresh evidence—Opening words of s. 67(1) regarding requirements to allow appeal applying to all three paragraphs—Also, s. 67(2) confirming IAD’s de novo jurisdiction irrespective of reasons for which appeal allowed by stating IAD may substitute decision that should have been made—Application dismissed.
Mendoza v. Canada (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) (IMM‑1160‑07, 2007 FC 934, de Montigny J., order dated 19/9/07, 17 pp.)